This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 55634 dated December 29, 2000 and its resolution dated March
26, 2001.The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside
the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC NCR Case
No. 4312-ULP which affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter granting moral
and exemplary damages to petitioner Geronimo Q. Quadra in connection with his
dismissal from the service.

Petitioner Geronimo Q. Quadra was the
Chief Legal Officer of respondent Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO)
when he organized and actively participated in the activities of Philippine
Charity Sweepstakes Employees Association (CUGCO), an organization composed of
the rank and file employees of PCSO, and then later, the Association of
Sweepstakes Staff Personnel and Supervisors (CUGCO) (ASSPS [CUGCO]).In April 1964, he was administratively charged
before the Civil Service Commission with violation of Civil Service Law and
Rules for neglect of duty and misconduct and/or conduct prejudicial to the
interest of the service.On July
14, 1965, the
Civil Service Commission rendered a decision finding petitioner guilty of the
charges and recommending the penalty of dismissal.The following day, on July
15, 1965,
the General Manager of PCSO, Ignacio Santos Diaz, sent petitioner a letter of
dismissal, in accordance with the decision of the Civil Service
Commission.Petitioner filed a motion
for reconsideration of the decision of the Civil Service Commission on August
10, 1965.At the same time, petitioner, together with
ASSPS (CUGCO), filed with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) a complaint
for unfair labor practice against respondent PCSO and its officers. The case
was docketed as Case No. 4312-ULP.

On
November 19, 1966, the CIR issued its decision finding respondent PCSO
guilty of unfair labor practice for having committed discrimination against the
union and for having dismissed petitioner due to his union activities.It ordered the reinstatement of petitioner to
his former position with full backwages and with all
the rights and privileges pertaining to said position.[1]

Respondent
PCSO complied with the decision of the CIR.But while it reinstated petitioner to his former position and paid his backwages, it also filed with the Supreme Court a petition
for review on certiorari entitled Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office, et
al. v. The Association of Sweepstakes Staff Personnel, et al. assailing the
decision of the CIR in Case No. 4312-ULP. The petition was docketed as G.R. No.
L-27546.[2]

On
March 16, 1967, during the pendency of the case in
the Supreme Court, petitioner filed with the CIR a Petition for Damages.He
prayed for moral and exemplary damages in connection with Case No. 4312-ULP.He cited the decision of the Supreme Court in
Rheem of the Philippines, Inc., et al. v. Ferrer, et al.[3] where
it upheld the jurisdiction of the CIR over claims for damages incidental to an
employees dismissal.

Respondent
PCSO moved to dismiss the petition for damages on the following grounds:(1) the CIR has no jurisdiction to award
moral and exemplary damages; (2) the cause of action is barred by prior
judgment, it appearing that two complaints are brought for different parts of a
single cause of action;and (3) the petition states no valid cause of action.

Petitioner
resigned from PCSO on August 18, 1967.

The
petition for damages and the motion to dismiss, however, remained pending with
the CIR until it was abolished and the NLRC was created.On April 25, 1980, the Labor Arbiter rendered a
decision awarding moral and exemplary damages to petitioner in the amount of P1.6
million.The dispositive
portion of the decision stated:

WHEREFORE,
in view of all the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered
awarding to complainant Geronimo Q. Quadra moral damages consisting of the
following sum:Three Hundred Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P350,000.00) for besmirched reputation;Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P350,000.00)
for social humiliation;One Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) for mental anguish;One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00)
for serious anxiety;One Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) for wounded feelings;One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00)
for moral shock;and the further sum of P500,000.00
as exemplary damages, on account of the arbitrary and unlawful dismissal
effected by respondents. Consequently, respondents are therefore ordered to pay
complainant Quadra the total sum of One Million Six Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,600,000.00) within ten (10) days after this Decision
becomes final.

The NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter,[5]
prompting respondent PCSO to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of
Appeals.

The
Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the NLRC.It held that there was no
basis for the grant of moral and exemplary damages to petitioner as his
dismissal was not tainted with bad faith.It was the Civil Service Commission that
recommended petitioners dismissal after conducting an investigation.It also held that the petition claiming moral
and exemplary damages filed by petitioner after respondent PCSO had complied
with the CIR decision of reinstatement and backwages amounted
to splitting of cause of action.[6]

Petitioner
filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Court of Appeals, but
the same was denied for lack for merit.[7]

Petitioner now seeks the Court to review
the ruling of the Court of Appeals.He basically
argues:

First:The ruling of the Court of Appeals that the
PCSO did not act in bad faith when it dismissed the petitioner is contrary to
the already final and executory decision of the CIR
dated November 1[9], 1966 finding the PCSO guilty of bad faith and unfair labor
practice in dismissing the petitioner.The decision of the CIR was affirmed by the High Court in the case of
PCSO, et al. v. Geronimo Q. Quadra, et al., 115 SCRA 34.The Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction to
amend the final and executory decision of November
1[9], 1966 of the CIR which was affirmed by the High Court.Once a decision has become final [and] executory, it could no longer be amended or altered.

Second:The ruling of the Court of Appeals that the
claims for moral and exemplary damages of the petitioner is allegedly
tantamount to splitting of cause of action under Sec. 4, Rule 2 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure is contrary to law.When petitioner filed with the CIR his complaint for illegal dismissal
and unfair labor practice, the prevailing law and jurisprudence was that the
CIR did not have jurisdiction to grant moral and exemplary damages.Petitioners claim for moral damages was
filed with the CIR in the same case by virtue of the ruling of the High Court
in Rheem v. Ferrer, 19 SCRA
130 holding that the CIR has jurisdiction to award moral and exemplary damages
arising out of illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice.[8]

The
petition is impressed with merit.

A dismissed employee is entitled to moral
damages when the dismissal is attended by bad faith or fraud or constitutes an
act oppressive to labor, or is done in a manner contrary to good morals, good
customs or public policy.Exemplary
damages may be awarded if the dismissal is effected in a wanton, oppressive or
malevolent manner.[9]It
appears from the facts that petitioner was deliberately dismissed from the
service by reason of his active involvement in the activities of the union
groups of both the rank and file and the supervisory employees of PCSO, which
unions he himself organized and headed.Respondent PCSO first charged petitioner before the Civil Service
Commission for alleged neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the service
because of his union activities.The
Civil Service Commission recommended the dismissal of petitioner.Respondent PCSO immediately served on
petitioner a letter of dismissal even before the latter could move for a
reconsideration of the decision of the Civil Service Commission. Respondent PCSO may not impute to the Civil
Service Commission the responsibility for petitioners illegal dismissal as it was
respondent PCSO that first filed the administrative charge against him.As found by the CIR, petitioners dismissal
constituted unfair labor practice.It was
done to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization.It stated:

Upon
the entire evidence as a whole (sic), the [c]ourt
feels and believes that complainant Quadra was discriminatorily dismissed by reason
of his militant union activities, not only as President of PCSEA, but also as
President of the ASSPS.[10]

Unfair labor practices violate the constitutional rights of
workers and employees to self-organization, are
inimical to the legitimate interests of both labor and management, including
their right to bargain collectively and otherwise deal with each other in an
atmosphere of freedom and mutual respect; and disrupt industrial peace and
hinder the promotion of healthy and stable labor-management relations.As the conscience of the government, it is
the Courts sworn duty to ensure that none trifles with labor rights.

For this reason, we find it proper in this case to impose
moral and exemplary damages on private respondent. x xx

On the second
issue, we agree with petitioner that the filing of a petition for damages
before the CIR did not constitute splitting of cause of action under the Revised
Rules of Court.The Revised Rules of
Court prohibits parties from instituting more than one suit for a single cause
of action.Splitting a cause of action
is the act of dividing a single cause of action, claim or demand into two or
more parts, and bringing suit for one of such parts only, intending to reserve
the rest for another separate action.The purpose of the rule is to avoid harassment and vexation to the
defendant and avoid multiplicity of suits.[12]

The prevailing
rule at the time that the action for unfair labor practice and illegal
dismissal was filed and tried before the CIR was that said court had no
jurisdiction over claims for damages.Hence, petitioner, at that time, could not raise the issue of damages in
the proceedings. However, on January 27, 1967, the Supreme Court rendered its
ruling in Rheem of the Philippines, Inc.,
et al. v. Ferrer, et al.[13] upholding
the jurisdiction of the CIR over claims for damages incidental to an employees
illegal dismissal.Petitioner properly
filed his claim for damages after the declaration by the Court and before the
ruling on their case became final.Such
filing could not be considered as splitting of cause of action.

IN VIEW
WHEREOF, the
assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and
SET ASIDE.The decision of the
NLRC in NLRC NCR Case No. 4312-ULP is REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.

REYNATO S. PUNO

Associate Justice

WE
CONCUR:

ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ

Associate Justice

RENATO C. CORONAADOLFO S. AZCUNA

Associate JusticeAssociate Justice

CANCIO C. GARCIA

Associate Justice

A T T E S T
A T I O N

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Courts Division.

REYNATO S. PUNO

Associate Justice

Chairperson

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairpersons
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above decision had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Courts Division.